The Differential Effect of Print Consistency on Oral Vocabulary Learning in Bilingual Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research supports that the incidental exposure to print during oral vocabulary learning facilitates the acquisition of spoken words.However, it is not clear how this effect is moderated by print consistency.The current study examined whether different inconsistencies would moderate oral vocabulary learning when the children spoke more than one language.A paired-associate learning paradigm was used to teach French-English bilingual children (7 to 10 years old) novel labels for object referents.Children learned three types of non-words: non-words with a consistentprint, a final silent letter (common to French), and a double consonant in medial position (common to French and English).Unexpectedly, children learned consistent and double-consonant non-words more easily than silent-letter non-words.There were no differences between consistent and double-consonant non-words.This effect was maintained on expressive vocabulary one day later.However, children's spellings indicated the consistent non-words were easier to spell than both silent-letter and double-consonant non-words.iii Acknowledgments In the two years of my Master's degree, I have felt happiness, frustration, eagerness, stress, challenged and sometimes defeat.However, now I feel proud.I have grown and learned so much as a person, a student, and a researcher.To that, I must thank my supervisor, Dr. Monique Sénéchal.Through the years of working together, you have taught me to be a critical thinker and have always pushed me to my limits.I will be forever grateful for the opportunities that you gave me and the skills that I now have to enter the real-world.I must thank Ashley Bildfell -I could not have done this without you.Thank you for listening to me talk through thesis issues, but most of all, thank you for being such a wonderful friend.Amongst others in my family, thank you to my sister, Cassandra Malette who was always there to listen and was always willing to practice study procedures with me.Thank you to my parents who never stopped believing in me.I am forever indebted to Maxime
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".